US IP LAW of COPYRIGHTS - TRADEMARKS - PATENTS. Comments on all aspects of U.S. intellectual property law and policy, general IP, business IP, and entertainment IP, plus comments of interest!

Monday, May 7, 2012

The Old False Marking Statute Is Dead -- Really, Truly Dead

Prior to the recent amendments to the U.S. Patent Act, it became common for anyone to bring a claim in federal court accusing a manufacturer of mislabeling based on false patent marking. Former section 292 of the Patent Act allowed anyone to sue for up to $500 per item when a patent number was falsely applied to a product, or on advertising for a product. Numerous lawsuits erupted claiming $500 for hundreds of thousands of items bearing false patent numbers. But this is now behind us with the recent patent amendments contained in the America Invents Act. The present section 292 no longer allows anyone to bring a claim for false patent marking. Now, only a plaintiff who suffers a competitive injury caused by the false marking is permitted to sue.

Congress made the amendment retroactive to pending cases, and the retroactive application is made clear in the Federal Circuit's new decision in Rogers v. Tristar Products, dismissing a pending false patent marking claim. In Rogers, the plaintiff sought $500 per falsely marked item but conceded that he was not a competitor to Tristar Products and did not suffer a competitive injury. He argued, nonetheless, that the amendments to section 292 should not be made retroactive because, to do so, constitutes a governmental taking of his litigation rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Federal Circuit quickly disposed of Roger's argument, pointing out that a litigant does not have a vested right in a statutory-based claim until entry of final judgment. Statutory amendments can be made retroactive so as to negatively impact pending litigation. The Federal Circuit observed that Congress had a real good reason to make the section 292 amendments retroactive: to protect companies from having to expend resources to defend themselves from claims that they intentionally sought to harm consumers.

"By making the False Marking Act amendments retroactive, Congress was in significant part attempting to reduce the litigation expenditures in the large number of complaints filed but not yet subject to final judgment.

* * *

This was a legitimate justification * * *."

Recalling that the former false marking statute prohibited the fraudulent use of false patent markings, the Federal Circuit's new Rogers decision confirms Congressional elimination of an important tool preventing fraud on consumers.

Michael M. Ratoza is copyrightbug

BIOGRAPHY

Mike Ratoza practices Intellectual Property law from the Portland, Oregon office of Bullivant Houser Bailey PC. Mike’s objective is to assist each client to grow its business and protect its IP assets.

The Federal Circuit ruled last week in Sky Technologies LLC v. SAP AG that a patent can be transferred without breaking the chain of title ...

Sudoku Puzzles

Disclaimer

This is a blog. It is not a law firm. While I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. Use of this blog does not mean that I, or my law firm, represent you. Use this blog for general information and not for specific legal advice. Thanks.